Designer People
Author/s:
Sally Deneen
Issue: Jan, 2001(e-magazines.com)
The
Human Genetic Blueprint Has Been Drafted, Offering Both Perils and
Opportunities for the Environment.
THE
BIG QUESTION:
Are
We Changing the Nature of Nature?
Princeton
University microbiologist Lee M. Silver can see a day a few centuries
from now when there are two species of humans--the standard-issue
"Naturals," and the "Gene-enriched," an elite
class whose parents consciously bought for them designer genes, and
whose parents before them did the same, and so on for generations.
Want Billy to have superior athletic ability? Plunk down the cash.
Want Suzy to be exceptionally smart? Just pull out the Visa card at
your local fertility clinic, where the elite likely will go to enhance
their babies-to-be.
It
will start innocently enough: Birth defects that are caused by a single
gene, such as cystic fibrosis and Tay-Sachs disease, will be targeted
first, and probably with little controversy. Then, as societal fears
about messing with Mother Nature subside, Silver and other researchers
predict that a genetic solution to preventing diabetes, heart disease
and other big killers will be found and offered. So will genetic inoculations
against HIV. Eventually, the mind will be targeted for improvement--preventing
alcohol addiction and mental illness, and enhancing visual acuity
or intelligence to try to produce the next Vincent Van Gogh or Albert
Einstein. Even traits from other animals may be added, such as a dog's
sense of smell or an eagle's eyesight.
What
parents would see as a simple, if pricey, way to improve their kids
would result, after many generations of gene selection, in a profound
change by the year 2400--humans would be two distinct species, related
as humans and chimps are today, and just as unable to interbreed.
People now have 46 chromosomes; the gene-enriched would have 48 to
accommodate added traits, Silver predicts in his aptly titled book,
Remaking Eden.
We
may already be on the path to change the very nature of nature. If
you think it's a far-off prospect best left to future generations,
think again. On June 26, 2000, with much fanfare, scientists with
the taxpayer-supported Human Genome Project (working with the private
Celera Genomics of Rockville, Maryland) announced that they had completed
a working draft of a genetic blueprint for a human being. Many details
still need to be filled in before scientists can build a human from
scratch.
Sequencing
the human genome requires identifying 3.2 billion chemical "letters"
located on the 46 coiled strands of DNA, found in nearly every human
cell. While researchers now know the order in which DNA is arranged
on the chromosomes, they haven't identified all those chemical "letters,"
which contain the instructions for making the proteins that comprise
the human body. About half of the genome sequence is in near-finished
form or better; a quarter is finished. The 15-year project is to be
completed in 2005 at a budgeted cost of $3 billion, though some of
that tax money is spent on other genomic research.
While
the implications for longevity, health insurance and discrimination
of this milestone achievement have grabbed media attention, the ramifications
for the environment--good and bad--haven't.
An
Accelerating Timetable
How
soon will all this happen? Silver believes that by around 2010 parents
will be able to genetically ensure their babies won't grow up to be
fat or alcoholic, and by 2050 arrange to insert an extra gene into
single-cell embryos within 24 hours of conception to make babies resistant
to AIDS. It is already possible to insert foreign DNA into mice, pigs
and sheep. The obstacles to inserting them in humans are mainly technical
ones. At this point in human knowledge, it could lead to mutations.
Several techniques are under development to try to avoid that, however.
"For
the near and midterm future, we're looking at science fiction. You'd
have to be terminally reckless to do that type of human engineering
on people [with what we know now]," argues law professor Henry
T. Greely, co-director of the Program in Genomics, Ethics and Society
at the Stanford University Center for Biomedical Ethics.
To
change a baby's eye color or hair color within a fertilized human
egg "would be a very expensive and dangerous proposition for
such trivial purposes," says Dr. Marvin Frazier, who fields human
genome questions as director of the Life Sciences Division of the
U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Biological and Environmental
Research. "It is also my opinion that this would be wrong,"
he added, "but that will not stop some people from wanting to
try."
As
for manipulating intelligence or athletic ability, Frazier says it
will take scientists many decades to figure out how to do it. These
particular traits don't rely on one gene, but on all genes. They also
rely"to a significant degree" on nurture instead of nature.
Even when scientists figure it out, "It is likely that to achieve
the desired goals would require a lot of experimentation, which translates
into many hundred or thousands of mistakes before you get it right."
That means, Frazier says, "a lot of malformed babies and miscarriages."
A
Pivotal Moment
To
University of Washington professor Phil Bereano, among others, now
is the time for all of us to talk with friends and colleagues to hash
out the ethical and societal implications of this Brave New World.
Do we really want to commodify people? Could it be a Pandora's box?
Unfortunately, the box may already be open: Many nations have banned
genetic engineering on humans, but the United States has not.
"If
scientists don't play God, who will?" said supporter James Watson,
former head of the Human Genome Project, speaking before the British
Parliamentary and Scientific Committee in June.
"The
key question is not whether human [genetic] manipulation will occur,
but how and when it will," says a confident Gregory Stock, director
of UCLA's Program on Science, Technology and Society in a report entitled,
"The Prospects for Human Germline Engineering."
Meanwhile,
a long-anticipated September report by the American Association for
the Advancement of Science (AAAS) surprised some observers by failing
to call for a ban on making inheritable genetic changes in humans--that
is, genetic changes that would be carried on by progeny. Indeed, while
the report says that such research "cannot presently be carried
out safely and responsibly on human beings," it also leaves wiggle
room. "Human trials of inheritable genetic changes should not
be initiated until reliable techniques for gene correction or replacement
are developed that meet agreed-upon standards for safety and efficacy,"
says report co-author Mark Frankel, director of AAAS' Scientific Freedom,
Responsibility and Law Program.
Noting
the public outcry after the cloning of Dolly the sheep--which raised
the possibility of cloned human beings--the report stresses the importance
of public discussion about genetic research before major technical
innovations occur. So instead of a ban, the report suggests "rigorous
analysis and public dialogue."
But
there's no shortage of opposition to human engineering. The San Francisco-based
Exploratory Initiative on the New Human Genetic Technologies seeks,
among other things, to alert a largely unwitting public to what is
going on. "It really is a nightmare vision," says Rich Hayes,
who coordinates the campaign from his Public Media Center office.
"Once we start genetically re-engineering human beings, where
would we stop? We should have the maturity and wisdom to ban the modification
of the genes we pass to our children."
Designer
Genes
The
futuristic notion of choosing a child's genes from a catalog can certainly
capture the imagination. Just as parents today enroll their children
in the best possible schools and pay for orthodontics, the parents
of the future--perhaps in a few decades--would be able to choose from
an ever-increasing suite of traits: hair color, eye color, bigger
muscles and so on.
Maybe
they'd like to add a few inches to a child's height. Or improve a
kid's chances at longevity by tweaking inherited DNA. Or ensure a
resistance to viruses. Neighborhood clinics could, by appointment,
insert a block of genes into a newly fertilized egg. As one cell broke
into two, then four, and so on, each cell would contain the new traits.
And the child would pass on those traits to all subsequent generations.
Who could blame parents for going for this?
But
to Stuart Newman, professor of cell biology and anatomy at New York
Medical College in Valhalla, New York, the effect on human biology
could be analogous to transforming wild areas into artificial areas,
or wild food into artificial food.
We
"might be changing people into products--genetically engineered
products," says Newman, who also is chairman of the Human Genetics
Committee for the Council for Responsible Genetics in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
"That's something that's opened up by the Humane Genome Project."
"We
believe that certain activities in the area of genetics and cloning
should be prohibited because they violate basic environmental and
ethical principles," Friends of the Earth President Brent Blackwelder
and Physicians for Social Responsibility Executive Director Robert
Musil said in a 1999 joint statement. "The idea of redesigning
human beings and animals to suit the primarily commercial goals of
a limited number of individuals is fundamentally at odds with the
principle of respect for nature."
Proponents
and critics alike envision a future in which those who can't afford
gene enrichment will be relegated to second-class citizenship. "As
far as I'm concerned, this thrill we have about the future will end
up being one big elitist ripple," says Beth Burrows, director
of the Edmonds Institute, a suburban Seattle nonprofit institute that
works on issues related to environment, technology, ethics and law.
The
Green Dimension
And
what about the environment? Burrows says several important questions
arise about genetic tampering: What are we creating? How will it affect
the natural world? What will be the effect on evolution for each species
involved? How will it change feeding patterns, or food for other animals?
Without understanding interactions, she says, "We may do some
extremely stupid things. If people are concerned that there was such
a severe backlash against genetically modified foods, I think they
haven't seen anything compared to the backlash when we are able to
alter the human genome in significant ways--even insignificant ways,"
says Burrows.
